'Guilty Minds' clarifies the important distinction between drawing inspiration and appropriating someone

In the fantastically riveting show Guilty Minds, which I have woken up rather late to, there is an episode on artificial intelligence where a composer takes the sur and taal from different songs and meshes them into one composite song using an app. He is sued and the jittery music composers win, even as they acknowledge that they too have ‘been inspired’ by the music of their forefathers. The show highlights that when a DJ remixes songs, we dance, so why condemn an app that is, in principle, similarly inspired?

AI throws up the moral consideration of everything being inspired and nothing being original in this world. The fact is that there are seven original stories (comedy, tragedy, rebirth, quest, rags to riches, overcoming the monster, voyage and return) in the world, and by some accounts only three: happy ending, sad ending and tragedy. Everything else is a derivative. Many believe that original content is subordinate to context, and prior work being used for newer work is fair game. Whether you call it mixing, melding, remixing or copy-pasting, creative stealing is an art. You borrow from other sources, mix it up and then add your own. Originality doesn’t matter, authenticity does. Wasn’t it T.S. Eliot who said that good writers borrow, great writers steal. Or Oscar Wilde? Or Pablo Picasso? Who even knows anymore? You get my point? This is what AI is cashing into. It underscores the important distinction between drawing inspiration and appropriating someone, and how these distinctions will soon cease to matter.

AI is that boss we never knew we had, but who suddenly wakes up one day and says: you’re fired!

I recently spoke about AI (artificial intelligence) and literature at an event, which threw up the larger question of machine-made appropriation. Forget the debate of man-made appropriation and conscientious creations because – trust me –creativity and creators are heading into chaos. It is intimidating and scary but also, hear me out, exciting.

Earlier we writers had to deal with piracy, where our books were sold illegally. We had to deal with plagiarism, where our books were copied illegally. Now we have a whole new problem: reverse plagiarism. Instead of taking someone else’s work and claiming it as your own, you take your own work but claim it was written by us! This will trick our loyal readers from purchasing ‘our new books’, thus letting you leverageour cultural capital!

It’s very clever. Copyright doesn’t apply to these cases, since there is no copyright infringement. A copyright notice can be sent to get a pirated or plagiarized book removed, but if a book is “original” from a legal standpoint and the only thing copied is an author’s name, what can be done? The author’sname is not trademarked. The author doesn’t own the copyright to these ‘new’ works. Hell, even Amazon has perhaps only ‘contributory liability’ in these kind of cases.

Deep-faking authors is going to get rampant. Misappropriating authors’ names to sell AI-generated scam books is going to get rampant. The unregulated use of generative AI technologies is going to get rampant. Consumer deception will become common. Is the industry ready? Are creators ready?

In the factionalised world of creativity, the weaponizing of accolades/ identity, political grandstanding and moral posturing to push individual agendas is going to get more than just *ugh* wearisome. It’s going to become redundant.

Leaving aside economic unfairness, appropriated stories are a kind of violence towards the author. But the privileging of profit over culture is here to stay. What can you do?

I remember typing ‘Create a love story in Bhatinda’ before my talk as an experiment. The great literary algorithm of ChatGPT generated a horrible premise that was basically a nod to some Daisy and David eating cupcakes together on a soccer field as Mr Coach watched. Bless it’s cold mechanical heart, but at its best AI generates stories that are staccato, incoherent, rudimentary, and completely lack Indian context. Do I hear you say phew? I did too!

AI can enhance your literary life where you can outsource the mundane like social media captions to it, but thank your bloody heart that it cannot *yet* take cognizance of the vagaries of artistic ability.

Generative AI applies NLP, algorithmic techniques, and computational reasoning to the intuitive art of storytelling. This means that while it can assist with tasks like say brainstorming ideas, character development, plot structuring, proof-reading, or editing, it cannot bring the emotional gravitas and complexities of lived human experiences. It cannot bring authenticity to someone’s words. It’s obvious right? How can AI capture human pain and pathos the way humans can? How can it bring nuance and emotional depth? How can it capture intuition? Empathy? Coherence? Subjectivity? Contextual understanding? Or the imagination drawn by human intellect?

AI is high on IQ, but low on EQ. What do we call those people. Creators? No! we call them machines. AI is a machine; it is a not a creator. Not yet at least.

Remember the text from the prompts you generate using AI, will be replicated, and therefore misused, because AI anticipates and mimics human thought patterns. This is unsettling so you have to be smart and mindful about how you use AI. Keep your truly great ideas to yourself and not for AI to cross-pollinate. Do not inadvertently expose your intellectual property. Don’t reveal your magnum opus. Or your truly great ideas. Maintain ownership over your work. AI will become stronger and more powerful if we make it more powerful. Don’t feed into that. This way AI will continue to create formulaic and predictable storytelling, with homogenized content, and you will use AI for its purpose – to make your mundane work easier and your brand (marketing) stronger.

So far, you’re not irreplicable, the machine is. Be smart with your digital footprint.

AI is like buying a Rolls Royce and then having to drive it on Indian roads. You may think you’ve arrived, but it’s a bumpy unpleasant drive. The concept is better than the experience. I see it more as – sure using a car is more efficient and time-friendly than say going in a bullock cart, but this is only as long as you drive the car, you apply yourself, your skills, your attention, your time, and you learn how to navigate your car most productively. Human direction is still critical for AI.

What’s the way forward? AI companies should obtain consent from, credit, and fairly compensate authors. Platforms like Amazon and Goodreads should create more barriers for setting up author accounts to keep out the AI slush. Writers who generate the prompts that spew out line after line should be duly credited and paid.

As it stands today, AI is helpful, but not infallible. It is not an artist’s competition, but perhaps a companion. It’s a springboard to kick-off a football match, but not to play it. And for that we should be grateful. And remain so if we’re smart.

Meghna Pant is a multiple award-winning and bestselling author, screenwriter, columnist and speaker, whose upcoming novel THE MAN WHO LOST INDIA (Simon & Schuster) will be published soon.